going and coming rule in Utah

2013Comm’n, 685 P.2d 1051 , 1053–54 (Utah 1984) (cataloguing various exceptions to the going and coming rule). ¶19 The question before us is whether Jex qualifies for such an exception.

2013Comm'n, 685 P.2d 1051, 1053-54 (Utah 1984) (cataloguing various exceptions to the going and coming rule). 119 The question before us is whether Jex qualifies for such an exception.

2013And, more fundamentally, we find that approach incompatible with the statutory standard, in that a "going and coming" commute that is only incidentally beneficial to the employer and not subject to its control does not bring the commute within the "course of employment." 1 1 25 We first recognized an instrumentality exception to the going and coming rule in Bailey v. Industrial Commission, 16 Utah 2d 208 , 398 P.2d 545 (1965).

2013And, more fundamentally, we find that approach incompatible with the statutory standard, in that a "going and coming" commute that is only incidentally beneficial to the employer and not subject to its control does not bring the commute within the "course of employment." 1 1 25 We first recognized an instrumentality exception to the going and coming rule in Bailey v. Industrial Commission, 16 Utah 2d 208 , 398 P.2d 545 (1965).

2019Comm’n, 506 P.2d 1271, 1272 (Utah 1973) (explaining that the various exceptions to the going-and-coming rule had been created over time as courts made “specific applications of the statute to particular fact situations”). 52 Salt Lake City Corp., 2007 UT 4, ¶ 6 . 53State (Tax Comm’n) v. Indus.

2012This is because “in most instances, such an injury is suffered as a consequence of risks and hazards to which all members of the traveling public are subject rather than risks and hazards having to do with and originating in the work or business of the employer.” Drake, 939 P.2d at 182 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Barney v. Industrial Comm’n, 29 Utah 2d 179 , 506 P.2d 1271, 1272 (1973) (“Ordinarily an employee is deemed not to be within the course of his employment if he furnishes his own transportation and is injured while going to or from the premises where he is employed.”).

2012See generally Cross v. Board of Review, 824 P.2d 1202, 1206 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (stating that the carrying of work implements not necessary for the job was not enough to qualify the employee for an exception to the going and coming rule), swperseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Murray v. Labor Comm'n, 2012 UT App 33, ¶ 18 , 271 P.3d 192 . 123 In summary, the instrumentality of business indicia are not present in the facts of this case to the extent required to support Jex's contention that transporting his vehicle to and from the work site was within the course and seope of his empl

2012See generally Cross v. Board of Review, 824 P.2d 1202, 1206 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (stating that the carrying of work implements not necessary for the job was not enough to qualify the employee for an exception to the going and coming rule), swperseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Murray v. Labor Comm'n, 2012 UT App 33, ¶ 18 , 271 P.3d 192 . 123 In summary, the instrumentality of business indicia are not present in the facts of this case to the extent required to support Jex's contention that transporting his vehicle to and from the work site was within the course and seope of his empl

2012This is because “in most instances, such an injury is suffered as a consequence of risks and hazards to which all members of the traveling public are subject rather than risks and hazards having to do with and originating in the work or business of the employer.” Drake, 939 P.2d at 182 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Barney v. Industrial Comm’n, 29 Utah 2d 179 , 506 P.2d 1271, 1272 (1973) (“Ordinarily an employee is deemed not to be within the course of his employment if he furnishes his own transportation and is injured while going to or from the premises where he is employed.”).

2007Comm'n of Utah, 939 P.2d 177, 182 (Utah 1997) (quoting 82 Am.Jur.2d Workers' Compensation § 296 (1992)). €{20 While being conceptually accessible, the "risks and hazards" formulation of the going and coming rule is poorly equipped to handle the task of evaluating the relationship between an employer and an employee at the time an injury occurs.

2012T 11 Similarly, in Moser v. Industrial Commission, 21 Utah 2d 51 , 440 P.2d 23 (1968), the supreme court appears to have used the instrumentality exception to reverse the Commission's denial of compensation under the going and coming rule, based on the court's conclusion that the employee's truck offered a substantial benefit to the employer's business because it had taken on the role of a company vehicle and was needed to complete the company's business.

2012T 11 Similarly, in Moser v. Industrial Commission, 21 Utah 2d 51 , 440 P.2d 23 (1968), the supreme court appears to have used the instrumentality exception to reverse the Commission's denial of compensation under the going and coming rule, based on the court's conclusion that the employee's truck offered a substantial benefit to the employer's business because it had taken on the role of a company vehicle and was needed to complete the company's business.

2012The instrumentality of business exception exempts an employee from the going and coming rule "where the employer requires the employee to use a vehicle as an instrumentality of the business." VanLeeuwen v. Industrial Comm'n, 901 P.2d 281, 284 (Utah Ct.App.1995) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2012T9 There are certain exceptions to the going and coming rule, however, such as *1083 "where transportation was furnished by the employer to the benefit of the employer; where the employer requires the employee to use a vehicle as an instrumentality of the business; where the employee is injured while upon a 'special errand or 'special mission' for the employer; where ingress and egress at the place of employment are inherently dangerous; and where the employee combined pleasure and business on a trip, and the business part predominated." VanLeeuwen, 901 P.2d at 284 (quoting State Tax Comm'n v.

2012See generally Bailey, 398 P.2d at 547 (exempting the employee's travel to work from the going and coming rule because the employer required the employee to use his vehicle for the employer's benefit) Cross, 824 P.2d at 1205-06 (concluding that a ride-sharing arrangement worked out between an employee and the construction erew foreman, rather than at the direction of the employer, did not confer a substantial benefit upon the employer to exempt an accident that occurred while the employee was traveling home from the going and coming rule).

2012See generally Cross v. Board of Review, 824 P.2d 1202, 1206 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (stating that the carrying of work implements not necessary for the job was not enough to qualify the employee for an exception to the going and coming rule), swperseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Murray v. Labor Comm'n, 2012 UT App 33, ¶ 18 , 271 P.3d 192 . 123 In summary, the instrumentality of business indicia are not present in the facts of this case to the extent required to support Jex's contention that transporting his vehicle to and from the work site was within the course and seope of his empl

2019In upholding our decision, the Court explained that “employment includes not only the actual doing of the work, but a reasonable margin of time and space necessary to be used in passing to and from the place where the work is to be done.”48 For this _____________________________________________________________ 44 See, e.g., Salt Lake City Corp. v. Labor Comm’n, 2007 UT 4, ¶ 1 , 153 P.3d 179 (“The law uses the ‘going and coming’ rule to determine when a person acquires and abandons her status as an employee at the beginning and end of the workday.”); see also Jex, 2013 UT 40, ¶ 18 (explaining t

2019In upholding our decision, the Court explained that “employment includes not only the actual doing of the work, but a reasonable margin of time and space necessary to be used in passing to and from the place where the work is to be done.”48 For this _____________________________________________________________ 44 See, e.g., Salt Lake City Corp. v. Labor Comm’n, 2007 UT 4, ¶ 1 , 153 P.3d 179 (“The law uses the ‘going and coming’ rule to determine when a person acquires and abandons her status as an employee at the beginning and end of the workday.”); see also Jex, 2013 UT 40, ¶ 18 (explaining t

2019Because the Labor Commission did not err in finding that IHG’s premises included the parking lot in which Ms. Wilson fell, we also affirm the Labor Commission’s finding on this point. _____________________________________________________________ 34 2013 UT 40 , 306 P.3d 799 . 35 Under the going-and-coming rule, where an employee is injured while traveling to or from the employer’s premises, the employee is not entitled to workers’ compensation.

2019Because the Labor Commission did not err in finding that IHG’s premises included the parking lot in which Ms. Wilson fell, we also affirm the Labor Commission’s finding on this point. _____________________________________________________________ 34 2013 UT 40 , 306 P.3d 799 . 35 Under the going-and-coming rule, where an employee is injured while traveling to or from the employer’s premises, the employee is not entitled to workers’ compensation.

2019See infra ¶ 23 (explaining that the going-and-coming rule is a judicially created principle that guides courts in determining whether an accident occurred in the course of employment). 32 LARSON, THE LAW OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION § 7.04(1)(a) (2018). 33 Buczynski, 934 P.2d at 1172 (emphasis omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). 9 IHG v. LABOR COMM’N Opinion of the Court II.

2019See infra ¶ 23 (explaining that the going-and-coming rule is a judicially created principle that guides courts in determining whether an accident occurred in the course of employment). 32 LARSON, THE LAW OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION § 7.04(1)(a) (2018). 33 Buczynski, 934 P.2d at 1172 (emphasis omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). 9 IHG v. LABOR COMM’N Opinion of the Court II.

2019In upholding our decision, the Court explained that “employment includes not only the actual doing of the work, but a reasonable margin of time and space necessary to be used in passing to and from the place where the work is to be done.”48 For this _____________________________________________________________ 44 See, e.g., Salt Lake City Corp. v. Labor Comm’n, 2007 UT 4, ¶ 1 , 153 P.3d 179 (“The law uses the ‘going and coming’ rule to determine when a person acquires and abandons her status as an employee at the beginning and end of the workday.”); see also Jex, 2013 UT 40, ¶ 18 (explaining t

2019And it also makes clear that what courts sometimes refer to as the premises rule, or premises exception, is nothing more than a shorthand description of a circumstance in which the going-and-coming rule does not apply. ¶23 The going-and-coming rule is a “judicially adopted principle” that guides courts in determining whether an accident an employee suffers while traveling between home and work occurred in the course of the employee’s employment.37 An accident occurs in the course of employment if it occurs in “the time, place, and circumstances” typical of the employee’s employment.38 For exam

2019In upholding our decision, the Court explained that “employment includes not only the actual doing of the work, but a reasonable margin of time and space necessary to be used in passing to and from the place where the work is to be done.”48 For this _____________________________________________________________ 44 See, e.g., Salt Lake City Corp. v. Labor Comm’n, 2007 UT 4, ¶ 1 , 153 P.3d 179 (“The law uses the ‘going and coming’ rule to determine when a person acquires and abandons her status as an employee at the beginning and end of the workday.”); see also Jex, 2013 UT 40, ¶ 18 (explaining t

2019In upholding our decision, the Court explained that “employment includes not only the actual doing of the work, but a reasonable margin of time and space necessary to be used in passing to and from the place where the work is to be done.”48 For this _____________________________________________________________ 44 See, e.g., Salt Lake City Corp. v. Labor Comm’n, 2007 UT 4, ¶ 1 , 153 P.3d 179 (“The law uses the ‘going and coming’ rule to determine when a person acquires and abandons her status as an employee at the beginning and end of the workday.”); see also Jex, 2013 UT 40, ¶ 18 (explaining t

2014Jex v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2013 UT 40, ¶ 17 , 306 P.3d 799 . 114 One such test is the going-and-coming rule, which recognizes that "traveling to and from work is [generally] not part of the employment and is not covered by Workmen's Compensation." Lundberg v. Cream O'Weber/Federated Dairy Farms, Inc., 24 Utah 2d 16 , 465 P.2d 175, 176 (1970).

2014Jex v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2013 UT 40, ¶ 17 , 306 P.3d 799 . 114 One such test is the going-and-coming rule, which recognizes that "traveling to and from work is [generally] not part of the employment and is not covered by Workmen's Compensation." Lundberg v. Cream O'Weber/Federated Dairy Farms, Inc., 24 Utah 2d 16 , 465 P.2d 175, 176 (1970).

2014Fabricators, 977 P.2d 861, 864 (Colo.1999) (en bane) (including "whether the travel was contemplated by the employment contract" as a factor in determining whether such travel fits within an exception to the going-and-coming rule). 1 22 We therefore hold that the provision of Giguere's employment contract denying pay for the time spent returning from an out-of-town job site is not dispositive of whether the accident that killed Colvin occurred in the course of Giguere's employment. 6 Instead, we look to the circumstances surrounding the return trip and conclude that it was within the seope of